Debates of Dec. 3rd, 2024

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Environment and Sustainable Development

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the previous question to the motion to concur in the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

The hon. government whip.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the results of the previous vote to this vote, with the Liberal members voting in favour.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives agree to apply, with Conservatives voting against.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP members agree to apply the vote, and we will be voting yes.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour of the motion.

[Alain Rayes, Independent, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply the results of the previous vote and am voting in favour of the motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #907

Committees of the House

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I declare the motion carried.

The question is on the motion for concurrence.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to apply the results of the previous vote, with Liberal members voting in favour.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives agree to apply the vote, with Conservatives voting against.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats agree to apply the vote, and we will be voting yes.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour of the motion.

[Alain Rayes, Independent, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply the results of the previous vote and am voting in favour of the motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #908

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I declare the motion carried.

I wish to inform the House that, because of the deferred recorded divisions, the time provided for Government Orders will be extended by 19 minutes.

Refusal of Witness to Respond to Questions from Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on November 7 by the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford concerning the refusal of a witness to answer questions at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I will invite members to please carry on their conversations outside so that all other members who wish to can hear this message, especially the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

The committee had reported earlier that same day, in its 14th report, that a witness had refused to answer questions, even after being formally ordered to do so. This was Ms. Lauren Chen, who appeared before the committee on November 5.

According to the member, the witness showed contempt for the committee and the House by refusing to answer. The member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford asked the Chair to find a prima facie question of privilege so that he could, according to his notice, move a motion calling Ms. Chen to the bar of the House to receive an admonishment and answer questions.

The member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia argued that this situation constituted a breach of privilege and even a contempt of the House. She noted that the witness refused to answer even the simplest questions and that these types of refusals are unfortunately becoming a trend. However, she did concede that Ms. Chen's refusal was based on the fact that she is facing a criminal investigation in the United States. This raises questions about the extent of the usual protections that a committee witness can expect from the cloak of parliamentary privilege. For that reason, the member suggested that the matter should be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

The member for Kildonan—St. Paul contended that Ms. Chen’s refusal to answer the questions of committee members was contrary to the House committees’ well-established expectation to receive answers from witnesses. She emphasized that allowing witnesses to disregard committee questions hindered their ability to seek accountability from individuals appearing before them. She urged the Chair to ensure that Ms. Chen was held to account for her flagrant disregard for the House’s authority.

The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader also intervened. He stated that Ms. Chen’s reasons for not answering questions were based on her concerns about the risk of self-incrimination while under criminal investigation in the United States. He suggested that, while the House has the power to compel responses to members’ questions, the House needs to use its authority thoughtfully.

According to the parliamentary secretary, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is the appropriate body for examining the circumstances and making recommendations to the House on a way to proceed. He also asserted that making a prima facie finding now would be premature and that both the Chair and the House should wait for the committee to report on the matter first.

Historically, the House has tended to view the refusal by witnesses to answer questions with great seriousness. Having reviewed the committee proceedings of November 5, 2024, and having also considered the committee's report, it is clear to the Chair that Ms. Chen repeatedly refused to provide answers to questions posed by committee members. She stated that her refusal stemmed from concerns about self-incrimination in relation to ongoing investigations and court proceedings in the United States.

As stated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at pages 1078 and 1079, and I quote:

Witnesses must answer all questions which the committee puts to them. A witness may object to a question asked by an individual committee member. However, if the committee agrees that the question be put to the witness, the witness is obliged to reply. On the other hand, members have been urged to display the “appropriate courtesy and fairness” when questioning witnesses. The actions of a witness who refuses to answer questions may be reported to the House.

While the Chair understands Ms. Chen's concerns about self-incrimination in the United States, it is not the Chair's role to rule on legal matters. My responsibility is to ensure that the House's authority is respected.

Accordingly, I am satisfied that this matter touches on parliamentary privilege, and I am prepared to find that the matter constitutes a prima facie question of privilege. However, in the case before us, the Chair is also obliged to consider other unusual factors, especially in light of the course of action the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford proposes to take.

There are limits on the House’s jurisdiction over an individual located outside of Canada. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, on page 981, in footnote 155, confirms that an order of the House to compel the attendance of a witness depends on the witness being in Canada. This is similar to a summons issued by a House committee. On the same page, it states:

The Standing Orders place no explicit limitation on this power. In theory, it applies to any person on Canadian soil.

Erskine May, 25th edition, in a section entitled “Witnesses from overseas”, states at page 977, “Committees sitting abroad cannot exercise a power formally to send for persons, papers and records. Nor are witnesses summoned from overseas to give evidence in the United Kingdom”. On the same page, in respect of foreign nationals, Erskine May states that the power to summon is unlimited as long as the individual is “present within the jurisdiction of Parliament”. To my knowledge, Ms. Chen is currently in the United States.

These procedural authorities point to a central truth about the House’s power to compel the attendance of an individual, namely, that in using this power, the House must ensure it has the means to guarantee the desired outcome it seeks.

The motion the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford appears to want to move would call for Ms. Chen to be found in contempt and be ordered to appear at the Bar. However, it may not be within the control of the House at this time to compel Ms. Chen’s presence before it. The situation very much leaves the Chair in a conundrum, as it does not serve the House’s interests to adopt orders it cannot enforce.

Accordingly, and as indicated already, I am prepared to find a prima facie case of privilege. I believe that, in the circumstances, the best course of action would be for the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford to move that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. This would enable the committee to properly consider the unique elements of this case and suggest an appropriate and timely course of action to the House that ensures its privileges are respected. It may also provide more general guidance for any witness in similar circumstances to Ms. Chen’s.

I would like to make one last point. The House is currently seized with two motions on different matters of privilege. Only after the proceedings on the two questions of privilege are adjourned or disposed of will the member be in a position to move his privilege motion. This will afford time for the member to consult the clerks at the table for advice before finalizing the wording of his motion.

Given the unanimity of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security's report on this matter, it is the Chair's hope that members will be able to come to an agreement quickly as to how to best dispose of this motion and, if adopted, to allow the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to undertake its study expeditiously.

I thank all members for their attention.

The House resumed consideration of the motion, of the amendment as amended and of the amendment to the amendment.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke has the floor.

I wish to let all members know that there will be great latitude in the hon. member's intervention.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this morning I handed a letter to your office informing you of my resignation, effective in January.

After more than four years waiting, I now have a family doctor, and it is time to listen to his advice about putting my health first. This means these are likely my final remarks as the member of Parliament for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. I want to thank the Speaker and the House in advance for granting me some latitude today and, by doing so, perhaps saving me from having to write a book.

Let me start by thanking all those who have supported me over what has been nearly 14 years as a member of Parliament.

First and foremost, I want to thank the constituents of Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke for giving me the privilege of representing them here for four terms. It has been and continues to be an honour to work with the diverse communities that make up this riding, including six municipalities, four first nations and the large contingent of military families. In particular, I am thankful for the support I have received from the South Asian community, the Jewish community and, of course, the 2SLGBTQI+ community, both in my riding and from across the country.

Special thanks also go to my campaign teams in six elections and all the volunteers and donors and the many trade unionists who always came out to support me.

My biggest thanks, of course, goes to my husband, Teddy Pardede. When I first told him I was considering running for office, he said, “Okay, honey, you go do that,” but he has steadfastly stood by me as a public figure despite it turning out to require a little more than that from him and to be a little more complicated all round. He has supported me as a public figure for 20 of the 25 years we have been together.

Members know I am a crier, and I promised I would not cry completely through the speech, but I am going to get a few opportunities.

I have to confess that sometimes I am still a little astonished to actually be standing in the House. How did a queer kid from a farm in Nebraska, from a working-class family riven by domestic violence and child abuse, both shrouded in silence, become a member of Parliament? It was never part of my plan. I will always be grateful to Canada for providing me refuge more than 50 years ago, when it was still illegal for men to have sex with men in the United States, and for giving me so many opportunities to build a life here.

Who is to blame for me being a New Democrat MP? Well, it started with Tommy Douglas, who signed me up as a party member when he was my MP in Nanaimo more than 45 years ago; I had to sign the card before I got dessert. That resulted in my working with and for the party for over a decade, including a stint on Ed Broadbent's staff here in in Ottawa nearly 40 years ago.

After that time, I spent over a decade involved in human rights and international solidarity work. When I arrived back in Canada after a year of human rights work abroad and took up teaching again, I fell for an invitation from the new NDP leader, Jack Layton, to have lunch to discuss my human rights work. We did discuss human rights, but at the end of that lunch Jack said, “I'll bet you think there should be gay members of Parliament,” and of course, I agreed. Then he said, “Well, how do you think they get there if people like you will not run?” So I agreed, despite repeatedly having said no before and despite the many, myself included, who thought the path for a gay New Democrat running in the second-largest military riding in the country was more than a little uphill.

When I came to the House, it was after two losses, but more importantly, it was after more than 20 years teaching criminal justice, after serving as a municipal police board member and city councillor, and after working as an international human rights researcher in Indonesia, East Timor and Afghanistan, where I was often in the field alongside Canadian peacekeepers. I have tried to be true to who I am and to bring the expertise I acquired along the way to my work here in the House. As an out and proud member of the queer community, I hope I have demonstrated that diversity is one of our strengths as a nation and that more diverse Parliaments do indeed make better laws.

From 2011, I have been privileged to serve as the NDP spokesperson for queer rights. Fourteen years as the critic on one topic may be some kind of record, I am not sure, and we are still the only party to have such a position. I am proud to have successfully led initiatives in the House to add transgender rights to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the hate crimes section of the Criminal Code, to ban conversion therapy, to bring an end to the gay blood ban and to provide a path to safety in Canada for queer and trans refugees whose lives are at imminent risk. However, I want to stress that any progress on queer rights that has been made here has only been possible because of years of struggle at the grassroots level across the country by the queer community and the always unwavering support of my caucus, our leader and, I have to say, key MPs in other parties.

In the House, I have also served as the NDP public safety, defence and justice critic over the years. Again, I have been able to lead initiatives in the House that have led to the elimination of criminal records for the personal possession of drugs in this country and to expand access to community-based bail supervision, both to help make communities more safe and also more just.

Some things are still left undone. My initiative on coercive and controlling behaviour in intimate partner violence, now in the form of the member for Victoria's private member's bill, Bill C-332, remains stuck in the other place, despite having passed here unanimously last summer. I remain disappointed that my repeated attempts have failed to convince both Conservative and Liberal governments to remove self-harm from the military code of conduct as a disciplinary offence, an initiative that would signal an important change in attitude toward mental health in the military.

I have been privileged to be able to bring the whole of who I am to my work here in the House, despite increasing levels of harassment and threats for doing so. I am disappointed that we failed to pass my private member's bill to add the queer community to federal employment equity legislation so we can have a workforce that fairly represents the whole of the country we are. As a gay man who lost many friends in the first round of the AIDS epidemic, I remain perplexed by the government's failure to take the measures necessary to eliminate new cases of HIV in this country by 2030. All it would take is decriminalizing HIV non-disclosure and modest annual expenditures on community-based testing and treatment programs.

As an MP, I have also worked to provide strong service to my riding. I successfully secured better protections for southern resident killer whales, got federal funding for the initial cleanup of Esquimalt Harbour and delivered support for the local shipbuilding industry, as well as providing strong advocacy for individual constituents in their dealings with the federal government.

Let me stop to say how important the support is that I have received from my staff here in Ottawa and in my constituency office, most of whom, breaking the rule, are here in the gallery right now. They have been loyal and long-serving. Again, maybe I have set some records here; I have one staff person who has been with me from day one, and we refer to the other person in the office as the junior staff person because they have only been here 12 years. The same is true in my constituency office. None of what I have been able to accomplish would have been possible without their support.

I am especially proud to be part of this, my fourth, NDP caucus, which is particularly skilled and hard-working and which, under the leadership of Jagmeet Singh, has secured many important victories for ordinary working Canadians—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I hate to do this to the hon. member.